Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
From the June 28, 2019 Order List:
"18-587 ) DEPT. OF HOMELAND, ET AL. V. REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CA, ET AL. ) 18-588 ) TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. NAACP, ET AL. ) 18-589 ) McALEENAN, SEC. OF HOMELAND V. VIDAL, MARTIN J., ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-587 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment in No. 18-588 and No. 18-589 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument."
Here is the latest (May 22, 2019) backgrounder on the cases from the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic.
"QUESTIONS PRESENTED: This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement discretion known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed, by an equally divided Court, a decision of the Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy, were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In September 2017, DHS determined that the original DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck down by the courts on the same grounds as the related policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable. 2. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful."